Empowering Medical Students: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Precision Point-of-Care Echocardiography Assessment of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2023-11-29 DOI:10.1155/2023/5225872
Ziv Dadon, Amir Orlev, Adi Butnaru, David Rosenmann, Michael Glikson, Shmuel Gottlieb, Evan Avraham Alpert
{"title":"Empowering Medical Students: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Precision Point-of-Care Echocardiography Assessment of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction","authors":"Ziv Dadon, Amir Orlev, Adi Butnaru, David Rosenmann, Michael Glikson, Shmuel Gottlieb, Evan Avraham Alpert","doi":"10.1155/2023/5225872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<i>Introduction</i>. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use is now universal among nonexperts. Artificial intelligence (AI) is currently employed by nonexperts in various imaging modalities to assist in diagnosis and decision making. <i>Aim</i>. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS, operated by medical students with the assistance of an AI-based tool for assessing the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of patients admitted to a cardiology department. <i>Methods</i>. Eight students underwent a 6-hour didactic and hands-on training session. Participants used a hand-held ultrasound device (HUD) equipped with an AI-based tool for the automatic evaluation of LVEF. The clips were assessed for LVEF by three methods: visually by the students, by students + the AI-based tool, and by the cardiologists. All LVEF measurements were compared to formal echocardiography completed within 24 hours and were evaluated for LVEF using the Simpson method and eyeballing assessment by expert echocardiographers. <i>Results</i>. The study included 88 patients (aged 58.3 ± 16.3 years). The AI-based tool measurement was unsuccessful in 6 cases. Comparing LVEF reported by students’ visual evaluation and students + AI vs. cardiologists revealed a correlation of 0.51 and 0.83, respectively. Comparing these three evaluation methods with the echocardiographers revealed a moderate/substantial agreement for the students + AI and cardiologists but only a fair agreement for the students’ visual evaluation. <i>Conclusion</i>. Medical students’ utilization of an AI-based tool with a HUD for LVEF assessment achieved a level of accuracy similar to that of cardiologists. Furthermore, the use of AI by the students achieved moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability with expert echocardiographers’ evaluation.","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5225872","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use is now universal among nonexperts. Artificial intelligence (AI) is currently employed by nonexperts in various imaging modalities to assist in diagnosis and decision making. Aim. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS, operated by medical students with the assistance of an AI-based tool for assessing the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of patients admitted to a cardiology department. Methods. Eight students underwent a 6-hour didactic and hands-on training session. Participants used a hand-held ultrasound device (HUD) equipped with an AI-based tool for the automatic evaluation of LVEF. The clips were assessed for LVEF by three methods: visually by the students, by students + the AI-based tool, and by the cardiologists. All LVEF measurements were compared to formal echocardiography completed within 24 hours and were evaluated for LVEF using the Simpson method and eyeballing assessment by expert echocardiographers. Results. The study included 88 patients (aged 58.3 ± 16.3 years). The AI-based tool measurement was unsuccessful in 6 cases. Comparing LVEF reported by students’ visual evaluation and students + AI vs. cardiologists revealed a correlation of 0.51 and 0.83, respectively. Comparing these three evaluation methods with the echocardiographers revealed a moderate/substantial agreement for the students + AI and cardiologists but only a fair agreement for the students’ visual evaluation. Conclusion. Medical students’ utilization of an AI-based tool with a HUD for LVEF assessment achieved a level of accuracy similar to that of cardiologists. Furthermore, the use of AI by the students achieved moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability with expert echocardiographers’ evaluation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
授权医学生:利用人工智能进行左心室射血分数的精确点超声心动图评估
介绍。即时超声(POCUS)的使用现在在非专业人士中是普遍的。人工智能(AI)目前被用于各种成像模式的非专家,以协助诊断和决策。的目标。为了评估POCUS诊断的准确性,由医学生在人工智能工具的帮助下进行手术,以评估心脏病科入院患者的左室射血分数(LVEF)。方法。8名学生接受了6小时的教学和实践培训。参与者使用配备人工智能工具的手持式超声设备(HUD)来自动评估LVEF。通过三种方法评估片段的LVEF:由学生直观评估,由学生+基于人工智能的工具评估,以及由心脏病专家评估。将所有LVEF测量值与24小时内完成的正式超声心动图进行比较,并使用Simpson法和专家超声心动图专家的眼球评估来评估LVEF。结果。研究纳入88例患者,年龄58.3±16.3岁。6例人工智能工具测量不成功。比较学生视觉评价报告的LVEF和学生+ AI与心脏病专家报告的LVEF,相关性分别为0.51和0.83。将这三种评估方法与超声心动图医师的评估方法进行比较,发现学生+ AI和心脏病专家的评估方法有中等/基本的一致性,但学生的视觉评估方法只有一般的一致性。结论。医学生使用基于人工智能的工具和HUD进行LVEF评估,达到了与心脏病专家相似的准确性水平。此外,在超声心动图专家的评估下,学生对人工智能的使用达到了中度到实质性的评分可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Study on Nurse-Parent Partnership in the Pediatric Intensive Care Units Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Reduces Pain and Improves Internal Rotation after Arthroscopic Capsular Release: A Randomized Clinical Trial Why Some People Did Not Want to be Vaccinated against COVID-19? Analysis of Some Psychological Factors Connected with a Decision about Vaccination Predicting the Risk of Fundus Lesions in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Nomogram Model Health Experts’ Perspectives on Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs for Improvement of Hospital Care in the Dying Phase
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1